Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 442440" data-attributes="member: 8">This video could only be made by a (former) tellytalk member. That&#039;s why it makes a lot of sense.Moldavia, not even its awful aftermath, is what destroyed Dynasty. It was the disappearance of the story&#039;s self-critique (Pamela Sue Martin even described it as &quot;satire&quot;).A great example is Krystle&#039;s unintentional and awkward&nbsp; sales-pitch to Matthew Blaisdel (of all characters) in season 1. She didn&#039;t even understand what she was saying and it perfectly highlights a sense of corruption.Five years later, DC and the Carringtons have become the Wholesome Ones and Krystle could say the same lines and mean it.But Dynasty and the eighties became an osmosis that could not have been foreseen, and even with better writers I&#039;m not entirely convinced that the Dynasty narrative dictated by its merchandise could have been avoided.So, I prefer to make the distinction between boring Moldavia nonsense and exciting Rita nonsense, and that&#039;s why I&#039;ll always keep defending that part of Dynasty.But, whatever.It could be argued that Blake not really paying the price for Ted Dinard&#039;s death was the first &quot;Moldavia&quot;, but the soap brilliance here is: it was Krystle who paid the price.Krystle&#039;s suffering is the real engine of Dynasty, and of course I don&#039;t mean the eventful episodic suffering like accidents and hostage stories. The suffering needed to be about Dynasty itself.I had never really thought of it before - and I still think season 3 looks great - but the third chapter in the Dynasty Trilogy aka &quot;Adam&quot; didn&#039;t have much impact on Krystle.So, in a way, yes, that&#039;s where it all started to go wrong. And that&#039;s how Krystle ended up in a burning cabin instead of suffering the consequences of Adam&#039;s return.And of course it really didn&#039;t help to end the in-house feud with her opposing stepdaughter.It&#039;s not necessarily about Krystle versus Alexis, it&#039;s about Krystle being trapped in the world of the Carringtons, desperately trying to convince herself that she did the right thing. That she listened to Matthew Blaisdel&#039;s lie.And then there&#039;s Sammy Jo who tries to make the best of the Carrington lifestyle, and in the most amoral way possible. She&#039;s a bit underrated when it comes to analysing Dynasty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 442440, member: 8"] This video could only be made by a (former) tellytalk member. That's why it makes a lot of sense. Moldavia, not even its awful aftermath, is what destroyed Dynasty. It was the disappearance of the story's self-critique (Pamela Sue Martin even described it as "satire"). A great example is Krystle's unintentional and awkward sales-pitch to Matthew Blaisdel (of all characters) in season 1. She didn't even understand what she was saying and it perfectly highlights a sense of corruption. Five years later, DC and the Carringtons have become the Wholesome Ones and Krystle could say the same lines and [I]mean [/I] it. But Dynasty and the eighties became an osmosis that could not have been foreseen, and even with better writers I'm not entirely convinced that the Dynasty narrative dictated by its merchandise could have been avoided. So, I prefer to make the distinction between boring Moldavia nonsense and exciting Rita nonsense, and that's why I'll always keep defending that part of Dynasty. But, whatever. It could be argued that Blake not really paying the price for Ted Dinard's death was the first "Moldavia", but the soap brilliance here is: it was Krystle who paid the price. Krystle's suffering is the real engine of Dynasty, and of course I don't mean the eventful episodic suffering like accidents and hostage stories. The suffering needed to be about Dynasty itself. I had never really thought of it before - and I still think season 3 looks great - but the third chapter in the Dynasty Trilogy aka "Adam" didn't have much impact on Krystle. So, in a way, yes, that's where it all started to go wrong. And that's how Krystle ended up in a burning cabin instead of suffering the consequences of Adam's return. And of course it really didn't help to end the in-house feud with her opposing stepdaughter. It's not necessarily about Krystle versus Alexis, it's about Krystle being trapped in the world of the Carringtons, desperately trying to convince herself that she did the right thing. That she listened to Matthew Blaisdel's lie. And then there's Sammy Jo who tries to make the best of the Carrington lifestyle, and in the most amoral way possible. She's a bit underrated when it comes to analysing Dynasty. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =